Homophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality, non-heterosexual people, or anything or anybody that deviates from a strictly normative heterosexual approach to sexuality and sexual identity.

Homophobia is common in both the developing and developed worlds. Examples of this range from laws prohibiting gays to marry or adopt children, to hate crimes committed against gay people to the hateful and violent lyrics of some Jamaican reggae performers (notably Buju Banton) and the criminal codes of many African and Middle Eastern nations. 77 countries currently have laws against homosexual activity; in seven of these, the death penalty may apply.[1]

"Homophobia ... was defined as an emotional or affective response including fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort, and aversion that an individual experiences in interacting with gay individuals, which may or may not involve a cognitive component."[2]

This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural," while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes clearly use computers since their hate sites exist.

Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is natural is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals.[3][4]Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals aren't the only kind of animal that do this either.[5]

This is simply a variation, with added bigotry, of the "It's not natural" argument. It implies that being gay is a mental disorder or disability even though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability is a classic argument from definition fallacy. But the definition of disability does not include sexuality or gender. Being LGBTQ+ in no way impairs your ability to function as a human being in and of itself. In addition, drawing a parallel with sexuality and disability is a very troubling false equivocation, especially because it assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy.

Meanwhile, some fundamentalists claim that homosexuality is a creation of the devil.

George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman has the lovely line, "Chastity is the most unnatural of perversions."

Conservative Christians claim that God condemns homosexuality, but Jesus actually never brought the subject up, as it was apparently not very high on his list of important things to do or not do. While this argument may be relevant for some religious practitioners, it has no relevance to those people who read Scripture in a more accommodating fashion, or who simply do not believe in God.

It is interesting that the strongest religious criticisms of homosexuality (at least in Western countries) usually come from Christians, but Jesus Christ himself is not recorded as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus) and later apostles such as St Paul.

This is simply a value judgment which has no weight outside the mind of the person expressing it. Many people consider that images of heterosexual sex, for instance opposite-sex couples engaging in intercourse in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation, are also disgusting. We can assume though that God is fine with lesbians. There's no mention of female homosexuality in the Bible. Some fundamentalists, however, would claim Romans 1:26 is a condemnation of lesbianism, but the claim rests on a very shaky foundation, as the full context of the passage seems to be more of a condemnation of shrine prostitutes than of lesbians.[6]

Some communities are sensitive to corruption due to sexual relationships, or sexual abuse. How is that problem solved? Gender separation rules out the opportunities for heterosexual relationships. But to rule out homosexual relationships, the gays must be thrown out, too. The Boy Scouts of America is an example. The Catholic Church also intends to end sexual abuse by throwing out gay people.

The problem is that sexual abuse is very different from consensual sexual relationships. Prison rapists are usually not gay, though they are men who have sex with men.

Homophobes might say that marriage is an ancient institution, clearly defined as a union between man and woman. They ignore that Christian and other communities have condoned polygamy, forced marriage[7] and child marriage, and in some cases banned interracial[8] or inter-religious marriage.[9]

Many conservatives claim that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful. So if same-sex marriage is not allowed, all same-sex sexual activities would be sinful, by definition.

Homophobes might say that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of straight marriage, without explaining how this would occur. Some use vague Non sequitur explanations as to why it would devalue their marriage For example, "If we recognize counterfeit money, it devalues the real thing. Therefore, if we recognize SSM, traditional marriage is devalued."

Straight people have softened up straight marriage themselves, by allowing divorce, unregistered cohabitation and de-criminalization of adultery. And many years later, when some gays want to marry, they get the blame for ruining straight marriage.

Homophobes might claim that acceptance of homosexuality might be a gateway to acceptance of pedophilia, zoophilia, incest or other perversions, in the same manner as public acceptance of Earl Grey tea is a gateway to public acceptance of heroin. That is a slippery slope fallacious argument; in other words, bullshit. In the past, pederasty was a major form of homosexuality in Western culture, especially ancient Greece and Rome (and likely fueled some of the early Christians' animus against it),[10][11] but today's gay communities have made a radical break with the past and have come to condemn pederasty and other such acts.

Homophobes often claim that those living the "gay lifestyle" have simply chosen to be gay.

This could be correct for any given individual making this argument, but only if they are bisexual. Most people are attracted primarily to either men or women, and can exercise very little, if any, choice in the matter. Bisexual people, however, could conceivably choose to act on their attraction to the opposite sex and ignore their similar attraction to the same sex. But this would not make a bisexual person heterosexual.

Also curious and rarely discussed is why this should even be relevant; it's not as though societies routinely ban behaviors just because they appear to be choices rather than innate and inflexible preferences, whatever that distinction can be said to mean in an apparently deterministic universe. Blind to their own irony, the same people who revile the gays with the non-argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and thus wrong (...implying that it'd be okay if it weren't, as most evidence suggests?) are often very pleased to attempt to inflict a distinctly choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'll sit still and listen to their crazy, and none of them ever flips on his gay switch to show us just how easy it is to swap boning preferences.

STIs are indeed a public health problem. However, most gay people are not infected. And most know how to protect themselves. Just like straight people. It is simply not a problem unique to homosexuality. Also, there are STIs that are exclusive to, or more common, in straight relationships, such as the human papillomavirus.

If one is to believe Warren J. Blumenthal, homophobic conservatives might well be shooting themselves in the foot: "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."[12]

Some governments fund LGBT festivals, LGBT education for government employees, condoms, or other services to benefit sexual minorities.

Well, government spending could always be subject to debate, but this spending in no way makes homosexuality, itself, a problem; if gay people had their rights, the services wouldn't be necessary. Furthermore, there are not separate "gay" and "straight" economies: both are part of a wider thing generally known as "the economy". Governments and tax agencies do not employ people to ensure that the taxes paid by heterosexuals only go into programs targeted at sexual minorities, so it is definitely not a matter of "straight" money going to gay people.

And if we were only concerning government cost, wouldn't putting gay people on trial, and sending them to prison, or give them lifetime appeal before executing them be much more expensive?

Opposition to funding for LGBT services can be a hypocritical point of view when you consider that tax money going to orphanages and public schools could be described as directing tax money, including that paid by gay people, towards the results of heterosexual procreation.

First, even if this were universally true and demonstrable with convincing evidence (which it clearly isn't), it wouldn't mean anything. Promiscuity is not a vice in and of itself, unless you're religious and want to force everyone else to be just as miserable as you.

Second, while some gay communities encourage casual sex, some straight communities do too. Meanwhile, many gay people prefer life-long, monogamous relationships. All people, no matter their sexual orientation, have different tastes.

Many homophobic jokes and arguments center around anal sex, taking as read that it's a despicable act and implying that The Gays are obsessed with it. Male-on-male anal sex seems to matter more to homophobes than to gay men. There are some health issues with penile-anal penetration, but these also apply to male-on-female anal fun, which is popular among some young Christians and usually not condemned in the same way. Also, some gay men don't do anal sex anyways. Furthermore, due to the invention of that newfangled piece of technology known as the "strap-on," straight female-on-male anal sex is also possible and regularly indulged in.[13]

Conservatives might shout "Won't somebody think of the children?" and defend the norm of the heterosexual nuclear family. Of course, some children have same-sex parents, and credible research[14] can't seem to find any difference between them and children raised by opposite-sex parents. Ironically, homophobic policies like bans on same-sex marriage diminish the ability of same-sex parents to form stable households, harming their children. So yes, won't somebody think of the children indeed?

Most sexual encounters in the Western World today are non-reproductive. These include barrier birth control, biochemical birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterilized people, sex with less fertile people (due to old age or other reasons), and homosexuality.

Same-sex couples also commonly do something that is arguably more humanitarian that creating new people: they adopt children. There is also no requirement to make new people anyway, and a growing childfree movement against the entrenched emphasis on family and reproduction, while the world's population is still increasing. Does the planet desperately need more reproductive sex that badly?

A child has many opportunities to find role models; such role models don't need to be legal guardians of the child. Children of full-time working parents spend more time awake in daycare and school than with their parents. It should also be noted that, despite insistence that having both a male and female parent is vital for child development, homophobes will typically have less problems with single parents raising children.

There is little convincing evidence to back up this somewhat arbitrary claim, as a child's development is determined by the relationship and interactions with a parent, rather than pure genetic relationship. There are also many orphans who cannot be raised by their biological parents and a shortage of adopters.

Stable same-sex couples provide a pool of potential adopters prepared to raise children in a loving environment - one that is probably better, in fact, than what their biological parents may have provided. Same-sex couples never accidentally adopt a baby or have one birthed by a surrogate. This means that on average, same-sex couples are older, more responsible, and far more prepared to raise a child than the average opposite-sex couple.

In many jurisdictions, the fatherhood is commonly handed to the mother's husband. Same-sex couples don't function that way. But this can be solved by consensual agreements between the breeders. Notwithstanding some non-consensual events, it's not like they will fertilize by accident, if they are gay.

The "everything including the kitchen sink" approach is exemplified by a speech that Iowa State Senator Dennis Guth gave in April 2013 in which he accused gay people and homosexuality of breeding mental health problems, shortening people's life spans, causing health problems for heterosexual Americans (by causing "more and more medical tests required before giving blood or giving birth," though what precautionary blood tests have to do with spreading disease is a mystery) and other phenomena, including the downfall of past civilizations due to the failure of traditional marriage.[15][16] Unsurprisingly, Guth is a freshman Senator[17] and will be up for election again in 2014[18] so this might explain the reasoning behind such a speech.

Some organizations simply deny the existence of homosexuality, seeing it as a rebellious phase, a simpler way to "get some," or simply bisexuality, as opposed to a genuine lack of opposite sex attraction.[19]

Common arguments:

Most homosexual men enjoy women as friends. (Answers in Genesis used this argument.) People making this argument may be thinking that opposite sex friends (sometimes thought of as a psychological impossibility) are some sort of repressed desire for the opposite sex.

All homosexuals have some degree of OS attraction. (Also used by the same AiG "Scientist" on the same article) First of all, there is some confirmation bias in the study. He was a reparative therapist, who deals with people who want to "change." People who are in accepting communities, who are content with the same sex, may not feel the urge to change. Secondly, having past straight relationships does NOT make a person straight, anymore than eating soup makes it your favorite food. Third, if homosexuals DO feel heterosexual feelings, they are very weak, in the same way that prisoners may have homosexual feelings. Does that make everyone bi? Fourth, many homosexuals do not find the opposite sex attractive, describing it as "indifferent." Some may describe forced heterosexual relationships as feeling "unnatural" and like "doing it with my sister."

There are no gay men. They are just too lazy to be with a woman (Used by various homophobes) The homophobe's train of thought probably goes like this:

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Women are naturally choosy, slow, and hard to get.

Men have to go through great struggles just to "get some."

Since there is no woman in the mix, homosexuality provides men with a simple, lazy, unsophisticated way to "game the system."

I can't even imagine how you would like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair! (Used by various homophobes to deny the orientation) That's because you are straight.

Also, how could heterosexual women like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair.

The Freudian view has been that the most virulent homophobia is expressed by those who cannot accepttheir own same-sex attraction. Indeed such a link has been demonstrated in at least one clinical study (Adams et al 1996).[2] However, a later study noted that Adams et al points out the possibility of the role of anxiety in sexual arousal and found an aversion to same-sex sexual imagery in homophobes.[20] The validity of penile plethysmographs for use in psychological testing has also been called into question.[21] Openly virulent homophobes may indeed be overcompensating for their own homosexuality, though the highprofileincidents of said homophobes being outed has likely led to a spotlight effect.

A similar type of overcompensation that has also been theorized is the idea of masculine overcompensation. In this case, the strongest forms of homophobia do not arise from repressed feelings of homosexuality but from threats to masculine identity.[22][23][24] However, research has also shown that the belief that homosexuality is biologically determined and thus immutable reduces homophobic attitudes.[24]

Sadly, if these latent feelings are forced into the open, the outcome can be tragic. So called "gay panic" may lead to violence, or worse, and has even been used as a defense in murder trials, with varying degrees of success.[25]

In 77 nations being gay is illegal, occasionally punishable with death. Even when being gay is legal there are frequently different ages of consent for gay and straight relationships, gay marriage and gay adoption is in many nations illegal. [1]

Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality that leads to gay people being denied their basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Supporters of homophobic propositions, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, often attempt to delegitimize homosexuality by arguing any of the illogical arguments above.

Many opponents take it further, alleging a conspiracy theory they dub "the gay agenda", which is the belief that gays and liberals are plotting to use things like the public school system and Hollywood movies to turn every child gay.

Some go so further they turn up the dial to 11. For example: some advocates of firearms, besides arguing they should be totally free to exercise their Second Amendment rights, will often point to the gay agenda as a reason to own a gun. After all, how else will people be able to effectively fight back against the villainous gays that will force them to become homosexuals?[26]

Most of the developed world has moved away from the blatant, institutionalized homophobia that used to pervade it. Sadly America is one of the few developed countries that has a limp and is having a hard time catching up. In many states it is still legal to discriminate against gay people or deny them rights and privileges. These are very slowly going away thanks to growing criticism of homophobia and public activism for gay rights.

In 2009, Muslims from Britain, France, and Germany were interviewed for a Gallup poll, one of the questions being whether homosexuality is morally acceptable. 35% of the French Muslims agreed; 19% of the German Muslims agreed; but none of the 500 British Muslims interviewed for the poll agreed.[27][28]

In November 2012, a law for same sex marriage (called by some as Mariage Pour Tous : Wedding for Everybody) started to be debated in French Parliament and the first wedding was celebrated in May 2013. Between those dates, France have seen huge demonstration from the Manif Pour Tous (Demonstration For Everybody). Not a single wise person would have considered playing the Gay Agenda/Marriage Drinking Game during that time as intoxication could strike within a few second. Those event could be suprising to many as Europe and France are considered (since the French revolution) to be way less religious and more advanced on social matters.

Due to a lack of stable education systems and secular governments, as well as high levels of radical religious evangelism (both Islamic and Christian), many parts of Africa are infamous for their opposition to homosexuality. Uganda in particular has made waves with its hostile treatment of gay people, passing new laws to persecute them more than they already were, and allowing the public to deny them basic human rights. They've even shut down any support for them.[29] In 2014, Uganda proceeded to broaden the law, resulting in a rise on homophobic violence in the country.[30]

Amnesty International reports that Uganda is not unique. Criminalization of homosexuality is growing in Africa according to an official report published in June 2013.[31]